GEETA KUMAI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-sixth respondent and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and, with their consent, the appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The respondent-writ petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition (M/S) No.960 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct and conclude the inquiry forthwith regarding the legality and validity of the sixth respondent holding the post of member of the Mussoorie Nagar Palika Parishad, and to remove her from the office of member of the Mussoorie Nagar Palika Parishad, Dehradun district.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that elections were held to the post of member of the Mussoorie Nagar Palika Parishad in 2018; the sixth respondent contested the elections from Ward No.8, and the results of the elections were declared in October, 2018; and she was elected as a member of the Mussoorie, Nagar Palika Parishad. It does not appear to be in dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner contested against the appellant-sixth respondent, and had lost in the said elections. This fact has, however, not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. While we were initially inclined to initiate proceedings against the respondent-writ petitioner for having failed to disclose relevant and material facts in the writ affidavit, and thereby abusing the process of the Court, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would tender his unconditional apology on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, and submit that failure to so state was by oversight; and the petitioner has no intention of misleading this Court or to suppress material facts.